When you participate in the market you do good. If you try to participate in any extra-market good-production, then it’s much more important that you do no harm, than try to achieve any good.
It’s the justification for the harm we do in pursuit of goods that negates almost all non-market, non-judicial pursuit of goods.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 03:08:00 UTC
[E]n la teoría de los precios, exterioridad es un beneficio o pérdida no incluido en el precio del intercambio. Nosotros podemos debatir si la economía del estudio de inversión producción distribución intercambio y consumo o si la economía es el modelo bajo el cual todas las ciencias sociales desde la metafísica, la psicología, epistemología, la ética, sociología, ley, política, estrategia evolutiva de grupos y conflictos. -Todo el modelo todo espectro filosófico. Ahí permanece un conflicto entre lo pseudo científico (la epistemología moderna, la psicología freudiana, la sociología boaziana, la ciencia política marxista) y las ciencias sociales científicas que operan todas dentro de la misma rama de investigación que llamamos “economía (estudio de la información, incentivos y cooperación). Ya que yo entiendo que la economía es una disciplina de ciencias sociales que funciona como una competencia científica ante las seudo ciencias sociales. Yo trabajo con información en su totalidad, no sólo con los precios- Yo expando modelos económicos para incluir información de todo tipo las consecuencias en los cambios de esa información Siento que estoy bastante acertado al afirmar que ésta es la formulación correcta de las reglas generales sobre las cuales debemos trabajar para descubrir en esa disciplina que de forma arcaica llamamos economía La información es el modelo las ciencias físicas y la información es a su vez el modelo en las ciencias sociales. El hecho de que Mises, Popper, y Hayek no hayan traído esta idea a fruición, Y por que, es Uno de los grandes fracasos intelectuales de nuestra historia si solo porque permitió que las seudo ciencias que compiten ganen predominancia en la academia Y en consecuencia esas ideas se hayan vuelto políticas. La exterioridad: en contexto En el contexto de mi charla Y en el contexto de mis argumentos, no hay diferencia entre los aumentos y disminuciones del capital Y Las transferencias voluntarias o involuntarias de dicho capital, por información en vez de ese subconjunto de información que nosotros llamamos precios. En otras palabras, la regla general que describen la exterioridad de los precios no es sino un subconjunto de la regla general que describen la exterioridad de toda la información. Las consecuencias no previstas son cuestión del enfoque de la intención, no una cuestión sobre el enfoque de Las consecuencias de la información. (si usted entiende de esto yo realmente no requiero una disculpa porque yo estoy al tanto de que este asunto no es trivial. Yo cometo muy pocos errores. Pero siempre estoy constreñido por los límites el tiempo Y las circunstancias yo no puedo explicar cada concepto sobre los cuales apoyo en cada oración que digo. Simplemente lo imposible) Ahora hablemos sobre el keynesianismo. Así como yo dependo del información para producir condiciones de decidibilidad, yo también explico las diferencias entre la ley natural (mengeriana/austríaca), el imperio de la ley(Friedman/chicago), y las ramas la ley discrecional (keynes/freshwater) de la teoría económica. En cada uno de tus sistemas teóricos sus creadores dependieron de un método de decidibilidad (o lo que en matemáticas se conoce como el axioma de la elección) para poder justificar el uso de su modelo sobre los otros modelos con los cuales competían. El grupo de la ley natural asume la posición de no hacer daño (no mentir usando el sistema de precios). El grupo el imperio de la ley toma la posición que hacer el menor daño posible, de modo tal que no estamos mintiendo Sino corrigiendo problemas de información bajo imperio de la ley. Así que si hay un intercambio entre la desinformación que proveemos Y El sistema de información que llamamos precios e incentivos. Busca restaurar una condición de ley natural. El grupo de los keynesianos toman la posición de que cualquier desinformación que producimos ahora produce grandes ganancias que no es sólo inmoral resistir usar esa desinformación Sino que poco probable que cualquier consecuencia negativa que produzcamos será superada por ganancias inter temporales, te podemos reparar esos problemas que causamos luego con las ganancias. Bajo este modelo economía, la decidibilidad en teoría económica que no es provista por modelos axiomático es provista por axiomas de elección: por ejemplo: valoración subjetiva. Este asunto de la decidibilidad no ha sido resuelto aún, sin embargo la idea general austriaca de que no podemos hacer trampa de facto, parece ser correcta por el hecho de que la duración Y severidad de las depresiones económicas es cada vez mayor. Ésta es la razón por la cual el debate se ha calmado tanto desde la crisis del 2008. El establishment depende de la decidibilidad keynesiana para justificar aumentos en la tasa de consumo a expensas de la degradación normativa, genética, e institucional del capital, bajo en la sumir que es posible alcanzar la igualdad genética, normativa, Y posiblemente institucional. Lo cual si lo vemos esa forma claramente falso. Sólo ha sido desde el abandono mundial de la economía marxista, Y la aceptación mundial del capitalismo consumidor Y del crédito fiduciario, que la ventaja tecnológica de la civilización occidental nos ha podido dejar asumir que la tendencia del crecimiento constante está disponible para nosotros sin consecuencias Inter temporales. Keynesianismo en el contexto de la decidibilidad Así que, cuando yo hablo del keynesianismo, ese Es el método de decidibilidad al cual yo me refiero. De nuevo, yo tiendo a no cometer errores. Yo cometo muchos errores de brevedad, tiene muchas consecuencias no previstas por mi brevedad. Pero toda la comunicación en común requiere de perdida de información O su carga nos silenciará. Salud Traducido por Alberto R ZambranoU disponible en http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/08/17/externalities-and-keynesian-economics-in-context-of-information-and-decidability/
[E]n la teoría de los precios, exterioridad es un beneficio o pérdida no incluido en el precio del intercambio. Nosotros podemos debatir si la economía del estudio de inversión producción distribución intercambio y consumo o si la economía es el modelo bajo el cual todas las ciencias sociales desde la metafísica, la psicología, epistemología, la ética, sociología, ley, política, estrategia evolutiva de grupos y conflictos. -Todo el modelo todo espectro filosófico. Ahí permanece un conflicto entre lo pseudo científico (la epistemología moderna, la psicología freudiana, la sociología boaziana, la ciencia política marxista) y las ciencias sociales científicas que operan todas dentro de la misma rama de investigación que llamamos “economía (estudio de la información, incentivos y cooperación). Ya que yo entiendo que la economía es una disciplina de ciencias sociales que funciona como una competencia científica ante las seudo ciencias sociales. Yo trabajo con información en su totalidad, no sólo con los precios- Yo expando modelos económicos para incluir información de todo tipo las consecuencias en los cambios de esa información Siento que estoy bastante acertado al afirmar que ésta es la formulación correcta de las reglas generales sobre las cuales debemos trabajar para descubrir en esa disciplina que de forma arcaica llamamos economía La información es el modelo las ciencias físicas y la información es a su vez el modelo en las ciencias sociales. El hecho de que Mises, Popper, y Hayek no hayan traído esta idea a fruición, Y por que, es Uno de los grandes fracasos intelectuales de nuestra historia si solo porque permitió que las seudo ciencias que compiten ganen predominancia en la academia Y en consecuencia esas ideas se hayan vuelto políticas. La exterioridad: en contexto En el contexto de mi charla Y en el contexto de mis argumentos, no hay diferencia entre los aumentos y disminuciones del capital Y Las transferencias voluntarias o involuntarias de dicho capital, por información en vez de ese subconjunto de información que nosotros llamamos precios. En otras palabras, la regla general que describen la exterioridad de los precios no es sino un subconjunto de la regla general que describen la exterioridad de toda la información. Las consecuencias no previstas son cuestión del enfoque de la intención, no una cuestión sobre el enfoque de Las consecuencias de la información. (si usted entiende de esto yo realmente no requiero una disculpa porque yo estoy al tanto de que este asunto no es trivial. Yo cometo muy pocos errores. Pero siempre estoy constreñido por los límites el tiempo Y las circunstancias yo no puedo explicar cada concepto sobre los cuales apoyo en cada oración que digo. Simplemente lo imposible) Ahora hablemos sobre el keynesianismo. Así como yo dependo del información para producir condiciones de decidibilidad, yo también explico las diferencias entre la ley natural (mengeriana/austríaca), el imperio de la ley(Friedman/chicago), y las ramas la ley discrecional (keynes/freshwater) de la teoría económica. En cada uno de tus sistemas teóricos sus creadores dependieron de un método de decidibilidad (o lo que en matemáticas se conoce como el axioma de la elección) para poder justificar el uso de su modelo sobre los otros modelos con los cuales competían. El grupo de la ley natural asume la posición de no hacer daño (no mentir usando el sistema de precios). El grupo el imperio de la ley toma la posición que hacer el menor daño posible, de modo tal que no estamos mintiendo Sino corrigiendo problemas de información bajo imperio de la ley. Así que si hay un intercambio entre la desinformación que proveemos Y El sistema de información que llamamos precios e incentivos. Busca restaurar una condición de ley natural. El grupo de los keynesianos toman la posición de que cualquier desinformación que producimos ahora produce grandes ganancias que no es sólo inmoral resistir usar esa desinformación Sino que poco probable que cualquier consecuencia negativa que produzcamos será superada por ganancias inter temporales, te podemos reparar esos problemas que causamos luego con las ganancias. Bajo este modelo economía, la decidibilidad en teoría económica que no es provista por modelos axiomático es provista por axiomas de elección: por ejemplo: valoración subjetiva. Este asunto de la decidibilidad no ha sido resuelto aún, sin embargo la idea general austriaca de que no podemos hacer trampa de facto, parece ser correcta por el hecho de que la duración Y severidad de las depresiones económicas es cada vez mayor. Ésta es la razón por la cual el debate se ha calmado tanto desde la crisis del 2008. El establishment depende de la decidibilidad keynesiana para justificar aumentos en la tasa de consumo a expensas de la degradación normativa, genética, e institucional del capital, bajo en la sumir que es posible alcanzar la igualdad genética, normativa, Y posiblemente institucional. Lo cual si lo vemos esa forma claramente falso. Sólo ha sido desde el abandono mundial de la economía marxista, Y la aceptación mundial del capitalismo consumidor Y del crédito fiduciario, que la ventaja tecnológica de la civilización occidental nos ha podido dejar asumir que la tendencia del crecimiento constante está disponible para nosotros sin consecuencias Inter temporales. Keynesianismo en el contexto de la decidibilidad Así que, cuando yo hablo del keynesianismo, ese Es el método de decidibilidad al cual yo me refiero. De nuevo, yo tiendo a no cometer errores. Yo cometo muchos errores de brevedad, tiene muchas consecuencias no previstas por mi brevedad. Pero toda la comunicación en común requiere de perdida de información O su carga nos silenciará. Salud Traducido por Alberto R ZambranoU disponible en http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/08/17/externalities-and-keynesian-economics-in-context-of-information-and-decidability/
[I]n price-theory, an externality is any benefit or loss not included in the price of the exchange.
But we can debate whether economics is the study of investment, production, distribution, trade, and consumption, or whether economics is the model under which all social science, from metaphysics, to psychology, to epistemology, to ethics, sociology, law, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and conflict – the entire model for the entire philosophical spectrum.
There remains a conflict between the pseudoscientific(postmodern epistemology, freudian psychology, boazian sociology, marxist political science,) and the scientific social sciences all operating within the single branch of inquiry we call “economics”. (the study of information, incentives, and cooperation).
Since I do understand that economics as a discipline of social science functions as the scientific competitor to the pseudoscientific social sciences, I work with INFORMATION in total, not with PRICES alone. And I extend economic models to include INFORMATION of all kinds, and the consequences of changes in information.
I am fairly certain that this is the CORRECT (meaning true) framing for the general rules which we work to discover in that discipline we ‘archaically’ call economics.
Information is the model in the physical sciences, and information is likewise the model in the social sciences. The fact that Mises, Popper and Hayek did not quite bring this idea to fruition, and why, is one of the great intellectual failings of history – if only because it allowed the competing pseudosciences to gain predominance in our academy and as a consequence, policy.
IN CONTEXT: EXTERNALITIES
In the context of my talk, and in the context of my arguments, there is no difference between the increases or decreases in capital, and the voluntary or involuntary transfers of that capital, by INFORMATION rather than that SUBSET of information that we call PRICES.
In other words, the general rule describing the externalities of prices is but a subset of the general rule describing the externalities of all information.
And unintended consequences are a question of scope of INTENTION, not a question of the scope of the consequences of INFORMATION.
(if you understand this I don’t really require an apology because I realize this is non-trivial material. I make very few errors. But I am always constrained by the limits of time and circumstance and I cannot explain every concept that I rely upon in every utterance I make. It’s just not possible. )
NOW ONTO KEYNESIANISM
Just as I rely on information to produce conditions of DECIDABILITY, I also explain the differences between the natural law (mengerian/austrian), rule of law (friedmanite/chicago), and discretionary rule (keynesian/freshwater) branches of economic theory. In each of these theoretical systems the originators relied upon a method of decidability (or what in math is called ‘axiom of choice’) in order to justify the use of their model over the competing models.
The Natural Law group takes the position of do no harm (do not ‘lie’ using the pricing system).
The Rule of Law group takes the position of do as little harm as possible, so that we are not lying but ‘correcting’ information problems under rule of law. So that there is a trade between the disinformation we provide and the information system we call prices and incentives. It seeks to restore a condition of natural law.
The Discretionary Rule group (Keynesians) take the position that any disinformation we produce now, produces such profound gains, that it’s not only immoral to resist using disinformation, but that its unlikely that any negative consequences we produce would be outweighed by intertemporal gains, that we can fix those problems we cause later on with the proceeds.
Under this model of economics, decidability in economic theory that is not provided by the axiomatic model is provided by an axiom of choice: ie: subjective valuation.
This issue of decidability is not solved yet although the general austrian prescription that we cannot in fact ‘cheat’, seems to be correct given the increasing duration and severity of depressions. This is why the debate has calmed so significantly since 2008’s crisis. The mainstream relies upon keyensian decidability to justify increased rates of consumption at the expense of genetic, normative, and institutional capital degradation, under the assumption of genetic, normative, and (possible) institutional equality.
(which if stated this way, is clearly false).
It has only been since the worldwide abandonment of marxist economics, and the worldwide adoption of consumer capitalism, and fiat credit, that the west’s asymmetrical technological advantage let us assume that the trend of constant growth was available to us without intertemporal consequences.
KEYNESIAN IN THE CONTEXT OF DECIDABILITY
So, when I spoke of Keynesianism it is the method of decidability that I was referring to.
Again, I tend not to make mistakes. I make many mistakes of brevity, and there are many unintended consequences of my brevity. But all common communication requires information loss or the burden would silence us.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
[I]n price-theory, an externality is any benefit or loss not included in the price of the exchange.
But we can debate whether economics is the study of investment, production, distribution, trade, and consumption, or whether economics is the model under which all social science, from metaphysics, to psychology, to epistemology, to ethics, sociology, law, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and conflict – the entire model for the entire philosophical spectrum.
There remains a conflict between the pseudoscientific(postmodern epistemology, freudian psychology, boazian sociology, marxist political science,) and the scientific social sciences all operating within the single branch of inquiry we call “economics”. (the study of information, incentives, and cooperation).
Since I do understand that economics as a discipline of social science functions as the scientific competitor to the pseudoscientific social sciences, I work with INFORMATION in total, not with PRICES alone. And I extend economic models to include INFORMATION of all kinds, and the consequences of changes in information.
I am fairly certain that this is the CORRECT (meaning true) framing for the general rules which we work to discover in that discipline we ‘archaically’ call economics.
Information is the model in the physical sciences, and information is likewise the model in the social sciences. The fact that Mises, Popper and Hayek did not quite bring this idea to fruition, and why, is one of the great intellectual failings of history – if only because it allowed the competing pseudosciences to gain predominance in our academy and as a consequence, policy.
IN CONTEXT: EXTERNALITIES
In the context of my talk, and in the context of my arguments, there is no difference between the increases or decreases in capital, and the voluntary or involuntary transfers of that capital, by INFORMATION rather than that SUBSET of information that we call PRICES.
In other words, the general rule describing the externalities of prices is but a subset of the general rule describing the externalities of all information.
And unintended consequences are a question of scope of INTENTION, not a question of the scope of the consequences of INFORMATION.
(if you understand this I don’t really require an apology because I realize this is non-trivial material. I make very few errors. But I am always constrained by the limits of time and circumstance and I cannot explain every concept that I rely upon in every utterance I make. It’s just not possible. )
NOW ONTO KEYNESIANISM
Just as I rely on information to produce conditions of DECIDABILITY, I also explain the differences between the natural law (mengerian/austrian), rule of law (friedmanite/chicago), and discretionary rule (keynesian/freshwater) branches of economic theory. In each of these theoretical systems the originators relied upon a method of decidability (or what in math is called ‘axiom of choice’) in order to justify the use of their model over the competing models.
The Natural Law group takes the position of do no harm (do not ‘lie’ using the pricing system).
The Rule of Law group takes the position of do as little harm as possible, so that we are not lying but ‘correcting’ information problems under rule of law. So that there is a trade between the disinformation we provide and the information system we call prices and incentives. It seeks to restore a condition of natural law.
The Discretionary Rule group (Keynesians) take the position that any disinformation we produce now, produces such profound gains, that it’s not only immoral to resist using disinformation, but that its unlikely that any negative consequences we produce would be outweighed by intertemporal gains, that we can fix those problems we cause later on with the proceeds.
Under this model of economics, decidability in economic theory that is not provided by the axiomatic model is provided by an axiom of choice: ie: subjective valuation.
This issue of decidability is not solved yet although the general austrian prescription that we cannot in fact ‘cheat’, seems to be correct given the increasing duration and severity of depressions. This is why the debate has calmed so significantly since 2008’s crisis. The mainstream relies upon keyensian decidability to justify increased rates of consumption at the expense of genetic, normative, and institutional capital degradation, under the assumption of genetic, normative, and (possible) institutional equality.
(which if stated this way, is clearly false).
It has only been since the worldwide abandonment of marxist economics, and the worldwide adoption of consumer capitalism, and fiat credit, that the west’s asymmetrical technological advantage let us assume that the trend of constant growth was available to us without intertemporal consequences.
KEYNESIAN IN THE CONTEXT OF DECIDABILITY
So, when I spoke of Keynesianism it is the method of decidability that I was referring to.
Again, I tend not to make mistakes. I make many mistakes of brevity, and there are many unintended consequences of my brevity. But all common communication requires information loss or the burden would silence us.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
EXTERNALITIES AND KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IN CONTEXT OF INFORMATION AND DECIDABILITY
In price-theory, an externality is any benefit or loss not included in the price of the exchange.
But we can debate whether economics is the study of investment, production, distribution, trade, and consumption, or whether economics is the model under which all social science, from metaphysics, to psychology, to epistemology, to ethics, sociology, law, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and conflict – the entire model for the entire philosophical spectrum.
There remains a conflict between the pseudoscientific(postmodern epistemology, freudian psychology, boazian sociology, marxist political science,) and the scientific social sciences all operating within the single branch of inquiry we call “economics”. (the study of information, incentives, and cooperation).
Since I do understand that economics as a discipline of social science functions as the scientific competitor to the pseudoscientific social sciences, I work with INFORMATION in total, not with PRICES alone. And I extend economic models to include INFORMATION of all kinds, and the consequences of changes in information.
I am fairly certain that this is the CORRECT (meaning true) framing for the general rules which we work to discover in that discipline we ‘archaically’ call economics.
Information is the model in the physical sciences, and information is likewise the model in the social sciences. The fact that Mises, Popper and Hayek did not quite bring this idea to fruition, and why, is one of the great intellectual failings of history – if only because it allowed the competing pseudosciences to gain predominance in our academy and as a consequence, policy.
IN CONTEXT: EXTERNALITIES
In the context of my talk, and in the context of my arguments, there is no difference between the increases or decreases in capital, and the voluntary or involuntary transfers of that capital, by INFORMATION rather than that SUBSET of information that we call PRICES.
In other words, the general rule describing the externalities of prices is but a subset of the general rule describing the externalities of all information.
And unintended consequences are a question of scope of INTENTION, not a question of the scope of the consequences of INFORMATION.
(if you understand this I don’t really require an apology because I realize this is non-trivial material. I make very few errors. But I am always constrained by the limits of time and circumstance and I cannot explain every concept that I rely upon in every utterance I make. It’s just not possible. )
NOW ONTO KEYNESIANISM
Just as I rely on information to produce conditions of DECIDABILITY, I also explain the differences between the natural law (mengerian/austrian), rule of law (friedmanite/chicago), and discretionary rule (keynesian/freshwater) branches of economic theory. In each of these theoretical systems the originators relied upon a method of decidability (or what in math is called ‘axiom of choice’) in order to justify the use of their model over the competing models.
The Natural Law group takes the position of do no harm (do not ‘lie’ using the pricing system).
The Rule of Law group takes the position of do as little harm as possible, so that we are not lying but ‘correcting’ information problems under rule of law. So that there is a trade between the disinformation we provide and the information system we call prices and incentives. It seeks to restore a condition of natural law.
The Discretionary Rule group (Keynesians) take the position that any disinformation we produce now, produces such profound gains, that it’s not only immoral to resist using disinformation, but that its unlikely that any negative consequences we produce would be outweighed by intertemporal gains, that we can fix those problems we cause later on with the proceeds.
Under this model of economics, decidability in economic theory that is not provided by the axiomatic model is provided by an axiom of choice: ie: subjective valuation.
This issue of decidability is not solved yet although the general austrian prescription that we cannot in fact ‘cheat’, seems to be correct given the increasing duration and severity of depressions. This is why the debate has calmed so significantly since 2008’s crisis. The mainstream relies upon keyensian decidability to justify increased rates of consumption at the expense of genetic, normative, and institutional capital degradation, under the assumption of genetic, normative, and (possible) institutional equality.
(which if stated this way, is clearly false).
It has only been since the worldwide abandonment of marxist economics, and the worldwide adoption of consumer capitalism, and fiat credit, that the west’s asymmetrical technological advantage let us assume that the trend of constant growth was available to us without intertemporal consequences.
KEYNESIAN IN THE CONTEXT OF DECIDABILITY
So, when I spoke of Keynesianism it is the method of decidability that I was referring to.
Again, I tend not to make mistakes. I make many mistakes of brevity, and there are many unintended consequences of my brevity. But all common communication requires information loss or the burden would silence us.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 04:32:00 UTC
People who act locally, and think locally, rather than impose costs of their fantasies upon others?
https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-best-examples-of-truly-citizens-of-the-world
People who act locally, and think locally, rather than impose costs of their fantasies upon others?
https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-best-examples-of-truly-citizens-of-the-world
There is a long tradition of slough, stream, pond and lake building, and it’s very hard to find criticisms of it unless you violate one of the three four principles:
However, (and simple research will help you) almost all principalities will benefit from the creation of a recreational or wild lake.
Where I lived in Western Washington the idea is to maintain ecosystems for animals but rearranging land use is just fine. (In some progressive states these departments attract … nutcases, not people seeking to preserve balance. )
https://www.quora.com/If-I-wanted-to-would-it-be-legal-to-build-a-multi-thousand-acre-lake-on-all-private-property
Fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 16:12:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764494963480690688
Reply addressees: @ontologicalepi @SanguineEmpiric
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764493929509027840
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764493929509027840